Common Mistakes Made by Internal Committees: What Every IC Member Should Know

An Internal Committee (IC) is one of the most important components of an organisation’s PoSH framework.

But constituting an IC is only the beginning.

An IC can be properly constituted on paper and still face serious problems in practice—particularly when members are unfamiliar with inquiry procedure, documentation, confidentiality, natural justice, or the responsibilities attached to their role.

A poorly handled inquiry can affect everyone involved: the complainant, the respondent, the organisation, and the credibility of the PoSH mechanism itself.

So, what are some of the most common mistakes Internal Committees make?

Let’s look at them.

1. Treating the IC as an HR Committee

One of the most common misunderstandings is assuming that the Internal Committee is simply another HR function.

While HR may provide administrative or organisational support, the IC has a specific statutory role under the PoSH framework.

An IC is not merely responsible for receiving a complaint and forwarding it to management.

It may have to examine the complaint, conduct an inquiry, consider relevant material, provide the parties an opportunity to present their case, and arrive at findings in accordance with the applicable procedure.

Why this matters

If the IC approaches a complaint as an ordinary employee grievance rather than a PoSH proceeding, important procedural safeguards can easily be missed.

The IC is not an extension of the HR department. It has a distinct responsibility.

2. Assuming That the Complainant Is Automatically Right

When dealing with allegations of sexual harassment, IC members naturally need to approach the complainant with sensitivity.

However, sensitivity and impartiality must go together.

One of the biggest mistakes an IC can make is forming a conclusion before completing the inquiry.

The role of the IC is not to decide who is right or wrong at the beginning.

It is to examine the allegations, understand the responses, consider relevant material and reach findings based on the inquiry.

Remember:

Empathy does not mean predetermined findings.

A fair inquiry protects the integrity of the process for everyone involved.

3. Assuming That the Respondent Is Automatically Guilty

The opposite mistake is equally problematic.

The fact that a complaint has been filed does not mean that the respondent has already been found guilty.

A complaint triggers the process. It does not determine the outcome.

The respondent must be given a reasonable opportunity to understand the allegations and present their response in accordance with the applicable procedure.

This is an important aspect of natural justice.

The IC must avoid both extremes:

“Believe the allegation without inquiry.”

“Dismiss the allegation without inquiry.”

The appropriate approach is:

Listen → Examine → Assess → Find

4. Rushing the Inquiry to Meet the Timeline

PoSH inquiries are expected to be conducted within the statutory framework and applicable timelines.

But there is an important distinction between being prompt and being hurried.

An IC may become so focused on completing an inquiry quickly that it fails to give parties a reasonable opportunity to present relevant material or respond appropriately.

This can create procedural weaknesses.

A useful principle for IC members is:

An inquiry should be timely—but not at the cost of fairness.

The objective should not simply be to close the file.

It should be to conduct a fair, credible and properly documented inquiry.

5. Treating “Not Proved” as “False Complaint”

This is one of the most important distinctions an IC should understand.

An allegation may not be established based on the material available during an inquiry.

That does not automatically mean that the complainant deliberately made a false or malicious complaint.

A finding that an allegation has not been established and a finding of a malicious complaint are not interchangeable.

IC members should therefore be extremely careful with the language used in their findings.

Ask:

What does the evidence establish?

rather than:

Who do we believe?

The findings should flow from the material considered during the inquiry.

6. Failing to Maintain Confidentiality

PoSH complaints involve highly sensitive information.

Yet confidentiality can sometimes be compromised casually.

For example:

• Discussing the complaint with colleagues who are not involved
• Sharing documents unnecessarily
• Forwarding screenshots or messages
• Discussing the identity of the parties
• Talking about inquiry proceedings outside the authorised process

The PoSH Act contains confidentiality requirements relating to the complaint and inquiry proceedings.

An IC must therefore treat information received during the process with appropriate care.

A simple rule:

If someone does not need the information to perform their role, don’t share it.

Confidentiality is not merely about keeping a document in a locked folder.

It is also about controlling conversations, access and communication.

7. Failing to Document the Inquiry Properly

An inquiry is not only about what the IC discusses during meetings.

It is also about what the organisation can demonstrate later.

Poor documentation can make it difficult to establish:

• What was alleged
• What was submitted
• What responses were received
• What material was considered
• What steps were taken
• What findings were reached
• Why those findings were reached

An IC should therefore maintain appropriate records throughout the process.

Good documentation should answer:

• What happened?
• What material was considered?
• What did each party say?
• What did the Committee conclude?
• Why did it reach that conclusion?

A report should not merely announce an outcome.

It should demonstrate the reasoning behind that outcome.

8. Conducting the Inquiry Like an Informal Mediation

Another common mistake is trying to “settle” the matter quickly.

An IC may sometimes think:

“Let’s call both parties, explain the situation and get them to resolve it.”

But a PoSH inquiry should not automatically be converted into an informal workplace disagreement-resolution exercise.

The nature of the complaint, the applicable legal framework and the wishes and rights of the parties all need to be considered appropriately.

The IC must understand the difference between:

hearing a complaint

and

pressuring parties to reconcile.

The focus should remain on following the applicable statutory process.

9. Asking Irrelevant or Intrusive Questions

An IC inquiry requires questioning and examination of relevant facts.

But there is a difference between relevant questioning and unnecessary intrusion.

Questions should be connected to the allegations and issues that the Committee needs to determine.

IC members should avoid questions that are judgmental, humiliating or unrelated to the matter under inquiry.

For example, the inquiry should not turn into an examination of a complainant’s character, personal life or clothing unless a specific issue is legally and factually relevant.

The better question is:

“How does this information help us determine the allegation?”

If it does not, the IC should reconsider why the question is being asked.

10. Not Understanding Evidence

IC members do not necessarily need to be lawyers.

But they do need to understand how to approach the material placed before them.

Evidence in a workplace inquiry can take different forms, including:

• Written communications
• Emails
• Messages
• Documents
• Witness statements
• Relevant workplace records
• Other material submitted during the inquiry

The important question is not simply:

“Do we have evidence?”

It is:

“What does the available material actually establish?”

IC members should avoid relying on assumptions, rumours or workplace opinions that have no proper connection to the allegations.

11. Allowing Bias to Influence the Inquiry

IC members are human beings—and may already know the parties involved.

A member may have worked closely with the complainant.

Another may have a professional relationship with the respondent.

Someone may already have heard workplace gossip about the matter.

These circumstances can create conscious or unconscious bias.

The IC must therefore remain alert to factors that could affect impartiality.

Watch for:

• Personal relationships
• Prior conflicts
• Workplace hierarchy
• Personal opinions
• Stereotypes
• Assumptions about gender or behaviour
• Pressure from management

The credibility of an inquiry depends heavily on the perception and reality of impartiality.

12. Writing a Report That Gives the Conclusion but Not the Reasoning

One of the biggest weaknesses in inquiry reports is the absence of a clear reasoning trail.

For example:

“The Committee finds the allegation proved.”

But why?

What material was considered?

What did the complainant say?

What was the respondent’s explanation?

What did the witnesses or documents establish?

Why did the Committee accept one version over another?

A strong report should connect:

Allegation → Material → Analysis → Finding

The report should make the reasoning understandable.

A conclusion without reasoning can make the report difficult to defend if its process or findings are later challenged.

13. Forgetting That the IC Needs Training Too

Organisations sometimes conduct employee awareness sessions every year but provide insufficient practical training to the Internal Committee itself.

Knowing the definition of sexual harassment is not the same as knowing how to conduct an inquiry.

IC members may need practical understanding of:

• Inquiry procedure
• Natural justice
• Evidence
• Questioning
• Documentation
• Confidentiality
• Findings
• Report writing
• Handling difficult situations

The IC should be trained for the job it is expected to perform.

Awareness is not the same as competence.

14. Treating the IC as a “Ceremonial” Committee

Sometimes an organisation constitutes an IC simply because the law requires one.

Names are added.

A policy is circulated.

An email ID is created.

And then the Committee becomes inactive until a complaint arrives.

This defeats the purpose of an effective PoSH framework.

An IC needs to understand its role, remain prepared and be supported by the organisation.

The organisation should also ensure that employees know:

• Who the IC members are
• How to approach the IC
• Where to submit a complaint
• What the process broadly involves
• What confidentiality protections apply

An IC should be functional—not merely formal.

15. Assuming the IC Alone Is Responsible for PoSH Compliance

The IC has important statutory responsibilities, but PoSH compliance cannot be placed entirely on the Committee.

Employers have their own responsibilities under the Act.

Management, HR, IC members and employees all have different roles to play in creating a safe workplace.

A strong framework therefore looks like:

Management

↓
Support & accountability

HR

↓
Implementation & coordination

Internal Committee

↓
Statutory functions & inquiry

Employees

↓
Awareness & responsible workplace conduct

PoSH works best when these roles support one another.

A Practical Checklist for Internal Committee Members

Constitution

• ☐ Is the Committee properly constituted?
• ☐ Are members aware of their roles?
• ☐ Is the External Member appropriately involved?

Process

• ☐ Has the complaint been received and handled through the appropriate process?
• ☐ Have the parties been given a reasonable opportunity to present their case?
• ☐ Is the inquiry being conducted without unnecessary delay?

Fairness

• ☐ Are we approaching the matter impartially?
• ☐ Have we avoided assumptions?
• ☐ Are we considering relevant material?

Confidentiality

• ☐ Is information being shared only where necessary?
• ☐ Are documents and communications being handled appropriately?

Documentation

• ☐ Are proceedings and relevant material being properly recorded?
• ☐ Does the final report explain the reasoning behind the findings?

Competence

• ☐ Do the members understand inquiry procedure?
• ☐ Do they know how to handle evidence and documentation?
• ☐ Have they received practical IC training?

The Bigger Lesson

The effectiveness of an Internal Committee cannot be measured simply by asking:

“Do you have an IC?”

The better questions are:

• Is the IC properly constituted?
• Is it trained?
• Is it impartial?
• Does it understand inquiry procedure?
• Does it maintain confidentiality?
• Does it document its process properly?
• Can it conduct a fair and credible inquiry?

Because a Committee that exists only on paper does not create a safer workplace.

Final Takeaway

An Internal Committee carries a significant responsibility.

Its role is not simply to receive complaints.

It must help ensure that the organisation has a credible mechanism for addressing workplace sexual harassment through a process that is fair, confidential, impartial and procedurally sound.

The most common IC mistakes often come from treating PoSH as a checklist rather than as a process requiring knowledge, judgment and continuous capacity-building.

Remember:

A properly constituted IC is the starting point.

A trained and competent IC is the goal.

At PoSHmentor.in, we believe that effective PoSH compliance goes beyond policy documents and annual awareness sessions. Organisations and IC members need practical understanding of the law, inquiry procedure, documentation and workplace implementation.

Beyond Compliance. Towards Safer Workplaces.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the biggest mistake an Internal Committee can make?

One of the most serious mistakes is conducting an inquiry without adequate procedural fairness. Other major issues include lack of impartiality, poor documentation, confidentiality breaches and insufficient understanding of inquiry procedure.

Does an IC member need to be a lawyer?

Not necessarily. However, IC members need appropriate understanding and training to perform their statutory responsibilities effectively, including inquiry procedure, confidentiality, natural justice, documentation and report writing.

Can HR conduct the PoSH inquiry instead of the IC?

The Internal Committee is the statutory mechanism prescribed under the PoSH framework. HR may support the process administratively, but the roles should not be casually treated as interchangeable.

Is an unproved complaint automatically a false complaint?

No. A complaint that is not established through the inquiry is not automatically equivalent to a malicious or knowingly false complaint.

Why is documentation important in a PoSH inquiry?

Proper documentation helps demonstrate what was alleged, what material was considered, what steps were taken and how the Committee arrived at its findings.

Disclaimer

This article is intended for general educational and awareness purposes and should not be treated as legal advice. Organisations should obtain appropriate professional advice for specific PoSH compliance or inquiry-related matters.